ACCforum: Fairway is already registered as a 'tribunal' Privacy Act 1993 section 2(1)(b) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Fairway is already registered as a 'tribunal' Privacy Act 1993 section 2(1)(b) 'unable to investigate any alleged privacy breaches by a tribunal.

#21 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 27 April 2015 - 01:42 PM

View PostMINI, on 26 April 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

You ask some very important questions for SCU claimants. I am not one. So I really do not have much idea how their administration works.

I think if I were you I would go to Judicial review on a point of law, but that costs over $1000 just for the court fees in the High Court.

The point of law would be something like: Has Fairview done what the Appeal court expected them too regarding your cover? And as a tribunal are they legally responsible for doing so?

I would expect the H/c Judge to tell them to pull there finger out as a court higher than review has already said you have cover. So get it sorted.

BUT I still think that learning what Fairview is allowed to do maybe helpful as caselaw for others coming behind you or longaside you. BUT in all decisions take care of your own needs first. If it helps others it all and good. If it doesn't, well I can only say, from what I have seen you get bugger all thanks at the end of the day, so worry about yourself first.

As with Kearney who got us changes for Interest on w/c and Buis who proved that interest was untaxable by IRD, these people individually paid lawyers massive amounts to make caselaw that saved claimant literally millions and millions of dollars. But I cant see anyone putting their hand in their pockets to help them pay the lawyers bills. But then I could be wrong.

You are Number one and it is your issue that you are fighting, for you. If it helps others so be it. Every case is unique its it own way, and no doubt others will be slightly different than yours, so different thinking and law may apply to others.

You can help others by steering them in the direction on your case, even though you have anonymity. It is up to you if you want to remain that way. you can even give your troublesome Review to people if you want too, that is your right, however I have had it said to me by a Reviewer that another review cannot be used as caselaw and they have taken it out. I have yet to have appeal so don't know the outcome to that issue yet.

Must go plenty to do. Sorry I cant be of more help.

Mini


Hi Mini

Thank you for ideas. Just wondering if anyone call fill me in on what happened in this claim?? Unable to get a link to it online? If jurisdiction is lacking by the HRRT then I guess that means we can take civil action regarding Fairway as the tribunal status is under company law?? Simply they should have provided a Reviewer that could hear the matter under Review - that of COVER. For a reviewer to get this basic matter wrong is a failure in duty of care as well!!


However it looks like we can take Accident Compensation Privacy breaches to the HRRT and if we can also provide evidence that they made many administration and privacy errors we may have some luck in obtaining an outcome?? This would not make case law!! The case law would be claimants signing away 9 months for acc to make a s(21) cover decision! s(21) claims ARE NOT complicated claims!! Back, neck, feet and physical claims are complicated claims as acc has to determine casual nexus, degeneration and the like ..... In comparision s(21) claims are purely - did the event happen or did it not? Has the claimants suffered a significant injury as a result of the violent or violation or have they not?? SIMPLE!!!
21 days is very adequate to answer these questions when police reports and other information is held on the claimant file.

CASE LAW
Aubrey v Accident Compensation Corporation and Dispute Resolution Services Ltd,
Decision No 25/08,
HRRT 26/08,
R D C Hindle (Chairperson), W I McKean, T McNaughton

Interlocutory decision on whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claim against proposed second defendant — Defendant disclosed personal information to second defendant — First defendant accepted breach of principle 11 — Privacy Commissioner did not investigate a complaint against second defendant — Section 82 of Privacy Act did not apply to second defendant — Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with claim against second defendant — Claim against second defendant dismissed — Costs reserved
0

#22 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 28 April 2015 - 02:55 PM

Hey Mini,
Struck gold today! Took your advise and lodged an enquiry to make a complaint to his professional body regarding the reviewer found to be 'unwise' and returning 'wrong' decisions and guess what?!

They take complaints seriously! In fact so serious that they lay complaints called "professional misconduct by a member". I am astounded!

The Privacy Commissioner is a joke, the HDC is a joke, the Medical Council passable, The Ombudsman is snowed under so lost in space, the NZPB is passable, Fairway is a joke so far, MP's are a joke, and suddenly a professional body that takes complaints very seriously!! Very encouraged!

Maybe justice can be had. Also following up other avenues to persue justice in. We do need some case law regarding acc methinks! Just has to be done to support claimants.

Of course the other option is to lobby for our own ombudsman like banks have! They are great - and money taken form our account was returned as the ombudsman became involved ......keeps banks more honest with him/her looking over their shoulder!!

Trapski in 1999 also suggested this appointment to hold acc to account as he found them to be adversarial and soul destroying of claimants. Funny in 2012 Disley found the same, R v ACC found the same and K v ACC found the same and we still have this adversarial and soul destroying monopoly treating us badly.
Not good enough!!
0

#23 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 April 2015 - 05:49 PM

View PostAurora, on 28 April 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

Hey Mini,
Struck gold today! Took your advise and lodged an enquiry to make a complaint to his professional body regarding the reviewer found to be 'unwise' and returning 'wrong' decisions and guess what?!

They take complaints seriously! In fact so serious that they lay complaints called "professional misconduct by a member". I am astounded!

The Privacy Commissioner is a joke, the HDC is a joke, the Medical Council passable, The Ombudsman is snowed under so lost in space, the NZPB is passable, Fairway is a joke so far, MP's are a joke, and suddenly a professional body that takes complaints very seriously!! Very encouraged!

Maybe justice can be had. Also following up other avenues to persue justice in. We do need some case law regarding acc methinks! Just has to be done to support claimants.

Of course the other option is to lobby for our own ombudsman like banks have! They are great - and money taken form our account was returned as the ombudsman became involved ......keeps banks more honest with him/her looking over their shoulder!!

Trapski in 1999 also suggested this appointment to hold acc to account as he found them to be adversarial and soul destroying of claimants. Funny in 2012 Disley found the same, R v ACC found the same and K v ACC found the same and we still have this adversarial and soul destroying monopoly treating us badly.
Not good enough!!


You go girl!! I am hoping that you will get some luck here.

Be good to read what the professionals criteria is and then you will have an idea of what they can do for you.

If this all turns to custard I really would consider an appeal for a judicial review to the h/c on a point of law.

That will sort them out, but it will cost you over $1,000 for court fee.

Good Luck Hope it turns out successful for you.

Mini
0

#24 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:31 AM

AURORA nailed that one home nicely.

The HEALTH & DISABILITY COMMISSIONER is indeed a joke.

So is the MEDICAL COUNCIL who support the dodgy doctors they rubber stamp each year.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users